FBI Agents Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka interviewed National Security Advisor Michael Flynn on January 24, 2017. According to documents presented in the court case, agent Peter Strzok did the questioning and agent Joe Pientka took most of the notes.

Following the interview agent Pientka then took his hand-written notes and generated an official FD-302; an FBI report of the interview itself. There has been a great deal of debate over the first draft, the original FD-302 as it was written by Joe Pientka. In the case against Flynn the DOJ prosecutors never presented the original Pientka 302.

On May 2, 2020, the DOJ, using new information gathered by U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen, declassified and released a segment of James Comey testimony that was previously hidden. Within the transcript Comey says Pientka wrote the Flynn 302 on January 24th immediately following the interview. [Screengrab below – pdf here ]

That January 24, 2017, version of the 302 is the one that has gone missing.

People defending the FBI have even said it never existed. However, the testimony of FBI Director James Comey proves the 302 was drafted on January 24th.

Additionally, recent evidence from Brady material turned over to the defense by auditing attorney Jeff Jensen showed FBI lawyer Lisa Page and FBI Agent Peter Strzok rewriting, editing and shaping the 302 on February 10, 2017, more than two weeks later:

Lisa Page is “pissed off” because Peter Strzok previously edited the 302 and she says he “didn’t even attempt to make this cogent and readable.”

Peter Strzok replies back to Lisa Page that he was “trying to completely re-write the thing so as to save Joe’s voice”, because Joe Pientka was the actual author.

Peter Strzok is re-writing the interview notes of Pientka in order to construct the framework to accuse Flynn of lying. Lisa Page is editing the re-write to make it more cogent and readable.

The question has remained: Where is the original 302 report as written by Pientka?

While the question(s) around the missing original 302 have yet to be reconciled, one possible path to discover its location and a copy of its original content lies in the testimony of Sally Yates. Former DAG Sally Yates testified to congress that after the Flynn interview DOJ-National Security Division:

“The DOJ-National Security Division received a detailed readout from the FBI agents who had interviewed Flynn.” Yates said she felt “it was important to get this information to the White House as quickly as possible.”

Yates is describing getting briefed on the same information contained in the Pientka 302. An initial briefing on the evening of January 24th, or and a more detailed briefing the morning of the 25th. DAG Yates was having meetings about the topic.

The calendar of DOJ-NSD Associate Deputy AG Tashina Gauhar shows meetings with Sally Yates which align with the discussions of the Flynn interview and Yates receiving a summary on the 24th and a detailed summary on the 25th:

In the DOJ motion to dismiss the case against Flynn, the records indicate Yates received a summary of the interview the night of the 24th, and the full detailed record came on the morning of January 25th:

.

Aligning with what Sally Yates previously described, James Comey admits the FD-302 draft was written on January 24th; providing the material for the Yates briefings:

Together with DOJ-NSD head Mary McCord, Sally Yates used briefing from the 302 of m Joe Pientka to travel to the White House on January 26th and brief White House counsel Don McGahn about the Flynn interview contrast against the content of the previously captured call between Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and Lt. Gen Mike Flynn.

If the FBI search for the original sentinel entry of the Pientka 302 is mysteriously impossible, perhaps the DOJ should go and get the readout provided to the DOJ-NSD on the evening of January 24th, and morning of January 25th, 2017.

Sally Yates and the original Pientka FD-302 report.

Yates testimony below:

•WednesdayJanuary 25th, 2017, – The Department of Justice, National Security Division, (at this timeframe Mary McCord was head of the DOJ-NSD) – received a detailed readout from the FBI agents who had interviewed Flynn. Yates said she felt “it was important to get this information to the White House as quickly as possible.”

•ThursdayJanuary 26th – (morning) Sally Yates called White House Counsel Don McGahn first thing that morning to tell him she had “a very sensitive matter” that had to be discussed face to face. McGahn agreed to meet with Yates later that afternoon.

•Thursday January 26th – (afternoon) Sally Yates traveled to the White House along with a senior member of the DOJ’s National Security Division, “who was overseeing the matter”, that is Mary McCord. This was Yates’ first meeting with McGahn in his office, which also acts as a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF).

Yates said she began their meeting by laying out the media accounts and media statements made by Vice President Mike Pence and other high-ranking White House officials about General Flynn’s activity “that we knew not to be the truth.”

According to Sally Yates testimony, she and Mary McCord presented all the information to McGahn so the White House could take action that they deemed appropriate. When asked by McGahn if Flynn should be fired, Yates answered, “that really wasn’t our call.”

Yates also said her decision to notify the White House counsel had been discussed “at great length.” According to her testimony: “Certainly leading up to our notification on the 26th, it was a topic of a whole lot of discussion in DOJ and with other members of the intel community.”

•Friday January 27th – (morning) White House Counsel Don McGahn called Yates in the morning and asked if she could come back to his office.

•Friday January 27th – (late afternoon) According to her testimony, Sally Yates returned to the White House late that afternoon. One of McGahn’s topics discussed was whether Flynn could be prosecuted for his conduct.

Specifically, according to Yates, one of the questions *McGahn asked Yates: “Why does it matter to DOJ if one White House official lies to another?” She explained that it “was a whole lot more than that,” and reviewed the same issues outlined the prior day.

McGahn then expressed his concern that taking any action might interfere with the FBI investigation of Flynn, and Yates said it wouldn’t: “It wouldn’t really be fair of us to tell you this and then expect you to sit on your hands,” Yates claims to have told McGahn.

McGahn asked if he could look at the underlying evidence of Flynn’s conduct, and she said they would work with the FBI over the weekend and “get back with him on Monday morning.”

•Friday January 27th, 2017 – (evening) In what appears to be only a few hours later, President Trump is having dinner with FBI Director James Comey where President Trump asked if he was under investigation. Trump was, but to continue the auspices of the ongoing investigation, Comey lied and told him he wasn’t.

Sally Yates received a detailed briefing from the original 302 (January 25th) via James Comey; and then went to the White House and informed Don McGahn (January 26th) about the nature of the interview.

The Flynn 302 was edited by Page and Strzok on February 10th. The 302 was changed and altered to match the FBI claims of a discrepancy. Flynn was fired on Feb 13th. The Flynn 302 was debated again on Feb 14th and entered into the record on February 15th.

Sally Yates was fired, and later testified to congress on May 8, 2017.

Bottom line the Flynn 302 was written on January 24, 2017. James Comey and Andew McCabe saw it; and Sally Yates was briefed from it.

391 Responses to UPDATE: Recently Released Comey Testimony Provides Further Evidence of The Original Flynn 302 Written by Pientka Before It Mysteriously Went Missing…

Damn SUNDANCE if anyone can solve a complicated puzzle with very minor hints it’s you. My guess is your first guess without facts were correct about 90 percent of the time (and I know that just from reading your speculation).

In reality, Pientka’s report, his 302 can not be lost or chewed by the dog. This is the argument Ms Powell has been making before Judge Sullivan. The report, we know was completed in the FBI database, under the corresponding Case File# for CR and cc’d into CH. The report is, a) being secluded or b) it was outright Deleted.

However the FBI’s main problem remains. The digital footprint for SA Joe Pientka’s entire FD-302 history, is also within their Database. Search the Case # or SA Pientka, and the result shows Pientka’s entire written history, with Date/Times….

The facts are, IMO that since the Alterations were ordered and were completed. The Case File shows either a big empty space assigned to Pientka 25JAN17, or it shows the original FD-302, with a TS/SCI blockage, for review or download.

Why do you assume Pientka’s initial write up, written immediately after the interview from his hand written scribbles plus his memory, would take the form of a 302 entered into the computer, rather than something written up longhand on paper, or simply typed up outside the official 302 system ? The fact that Comey referred to a draft 302 doesn’t exclude that kind of rough paper draft.

Seems to me that von Grack’s filing about handing over all versions of the interview “in the government’s possesion” indicates that he doesn’t want to promise that he’s handed over all versions that ever existed.

So likely that first 24 July version was just on paper.

From the other end, the 10 Feb exchanges between the lovebirds – you can’t edit thin air. There has to be something pre-existing to edit. What was it and have we seen it ? It can’t be the handwritten notes – mere jottings – taken during the interview, which we have seen, since Page would not expect that, or an edit of it, to be “cogent and readable.” So it must be a write up.

Finally Strzok’s ambition to “save Joe’s voice” is an indication that the previous version isn’t on the computer. If it was in the official system it would be preserved and so the difference between the two versions would be apparent to any later reviewer. Hence there would be no point in trying to “save Joe’s voice.”

The most important point is all of this is that whatever Pientka wrote, it is clear that he thought Flynn was innocent, i.e. telling the truth, ***THAT is why the report HAD to be rewritten.*** And Smirk & Lisa had to collaborate to do it to do it – to make it sound like and appear to be Pientka’s writing in their substituted frame up revision – so as NOT to sound like it is THEM as being the real authors of a concocted pack of lies.

Lee, I don’t assume Pientka entered this 24 JAN interview, into the Case Files for both CR and CH. That much has been documented, by Ms Powell.

But consider this, the interview of LTG Flynn, up to and including, the completion of the original 302, in the digital Case folder. Was, up to that point, operating at the highest levels of security and Bureau interest, of anything either Strozk or Pientka had ever, been involved in. Before or since (These clowns were all banking on Promotions, if, their Coup succeeded)

Hence, all the T’s were crossed, all the i’s were dotted, a-n-d honesty, integrity as well as Rules of Evidence (work product) were all still in play. IMO, Strozk and Pientka were being fed Russian Dis-Info straight from Brennan and CIA. They, either were true believers of that scenario, or, they knew enough to Cover-their-a**, by the book. In case TSHTF.

The FD-302, only went sideways days later. When McCabe, Comey, Brennan et al. Failed to get their, We F*** Flynn First Crime.

But IMO, Special Agents Strozk and Pientka, both felt their Initial Interview Report, of a Three Star General, the new NSA skipper, being conducted inside the White House, mere days into a new Presidency. That, FD-302 was going to be read and evaluated for a long time, by many major DC Hacks. It had to be screened and done by the book.

FWIW, that’s why, there IS, still a digital footprint, a metadata track. One, made by SA Pientka, on 25 or 27JAN17, whenever that Original was filed. One that even the Bureau can’t destroy or smooth talk around.

That IMO, is the basis for Van Grack’s Tap Dancing routine. He knows, not to go to far out on the Higher Loyalty limb. Because the evidence, of altered Originals, handwritten Notes contrary to facts reported in the 302. Along with missing and changed Dates and Times and TEXTS is all plain as day. And locked in some TS/SCI File, marked DFBLI EYES ONLY…at least for now..

Databases are backed up periodically. They can be restored to a specific time and date. There are cold backups of all the servers as well and the contents stored on multiple media kept in different locations. That is SOP in the data world. Nothing is ever lost. It might be a pain in the ass to retrieve but it is somewhere. The same is true of Hillary’s emails. If anyone tells you they are lost and cannot be retrieved they are either A) Lying or B) Ignorant. Everyone of those emails passed through servers that are backed up. It might be a tedious, laborious, time consuming effort to retrieve them but I will guarantee that every single one of them could be found.

I don’t know but I would guess the original handwritten notes if they were handwritten and not typed on a laptop or ipad are probably filed and a digital copy uploaded to the case database. FBI Director Christopher Wray does not want the 302 released because he fears rightly it will damage his institution. He needs to be fired and a new director chosen from outside the FBI and DOJ. The FBI itself needs to be broken up and the counter espionage functions moved to a new agency so there is a wall between criminal and intelligence activities.

I’m very surprised that no one mentioned that Sally Yates was intriguing against Gen. Flynn. In fact, several people conspired to get Flynn fired. And I think that a case could be made around that. Isn’t there a law against interfering with an official in the performance of his duties? I would think that intriguing against an official would violate that law.

In August 2008, Mr. Bush change d 12333 to permit the N.S.A. to share unevaluated surveillance information with other intelligence agencies once procedures were developed.

Intelligence officials began working in 2009 on how the technical system and rules would work, Mr. Litt said, eventually consulting the Defense and Justice Departments. This month, the administration briefed the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, an independent five-member watchdog panel, seeking input. Before they go into effect, they must be approved by James R. Clapper, the intelligence director; Loretta E. Lynch, the attorney general; and Ashton B. Carter, the defense secretary.

“We would like it to be completed sooner rather than later,” Mr. Litt said. “Our expectation is months rather than weeks or years.”

This seems important as to how the Flynn Kislyak call(s) were recorded and shared.

It is utterly ridiculous that in the 21st century the FBI relies on something as archaic as a Form 302 to record the events of a situation. The potential for illegal activity (Strzok and Page, call your office) is overwhelming. Tell me, when the FBI wants to communicate between their DC HQ and their Los Angeles field office, do they use smoke signals? I wouldn’t trust the FBI as far as I could throw a T-Rex on any topic at any time.

I’m imagining the whole FD-302 is a ‘work around’ over 4th amendment objections over recording.

I agree the whole thing has potential for inaccuracies, a person’s desire to believe their own theory’s about a case could shade their recollection or be used to inject their version of events.

Has anyone noticed how well they seem to remember details of conversations? I have to wonder if they have recording devises, not their gov phones nor connected to the internet in any way, to go by when recalling their conversations….

So process depends on honest agents and it’s constitutionality is questionable over 4th amendment rights.

Recall, Peter Strzok failed a lie detector test, and they allowed him to keep his top secret classification? So there was some policy in place to ferret out dishonest agents, and they didn’t act on it.

It all circles back to Pientka. I’ve been following this as close as I can for the last three years, and I haven’t heard a frickin word from Pientka. I know that’s probably by design, but why hasn’t he been forced to testify before Congress? I just think he could answer so many questions. The optimist in me thinks he’s already talked to Durham, but the pessimist in me thinks he hasn’t talked to anybody.

I will attempt to explain why I think the NSA database abuse was caught.

If you are given access to the database behind the audit trail (via Comey – explained in Number 4 below) then there is ONLY ONE WAY you could ever get caught with the Exported Data (explained in Number 1 below) ….

….is if your EQUIPMENT was TAKEN.

My guess of the NSA abuse after 9/26/2016 is becuase that WERE LOOKING FOR WHO HAD INFO from the LAPTOPs.

Supporting Information from the Collyer report is in Number 1-6 below; Supporting information from the Horowitz report is in Numbers 6-7 below)

The NSA had not fully assessed the scope of problem: the IG and OCO reviews “did not include systems through which queries are conducted of upstream data but that do not interface with the NSA’s query audit sytem”.

Preliminary Notice (Mislabeling) (nearly ____ communications acquired through upstream Internet collection were “incorrectly labeled” as acquired from Internet service providers, and, as a result, likely subject to prohibited queries using US person identifers.”

4) Comey gave access to users that the FISC was unaware of VIA an Interagency Memorandum (that was shut down immediately once found) (Footnote 60) – Page 87

The improper access granted to the [REDACTED] contractors was apparently in place [REDACTED] and seems to have been the result of deliberate decision making. [REDACTED] Compliance Report at 92-93 [REDACTED] access to FBI systems was the subject of an interagency memorandum of understantding entered into [REDACTED] ……”no notice of this practice was given to the FISC until 2016.

In a September 28 email to the case agent and the SSA, AUSA 1 advised that the case agent should review “only evident of crimes related to the sexual exploitation of children, enticement, and obscenity” ‘ all other emails should be sequestered.

The NSA had not fully assessed the scope of problem: the IG and OCO reviews “did not include systems through which queries are conducted of upstream data but that do not interface with the NSA’s query audit sytem”.”

This goes back to Obama’s Hammer. Remember Mad Maxine: ‘You should see Obama’s database, he has dirt on everyone!’

This is the system Brennan and Obama made, that was in a Baltimore field office run by Rod Rosenstein, according to Twitter user johnheretohelp. He said it was moved to the Whitehouse because they believed Hillary was going to win the election.

I find it highly interesting that on Jan. 27 when Yates with 302 summary and transcript in hand, again met with McGahn, rather than McGahn asking Yates about the alleged crime of Flynn lying to the FBI, A 1001 violation, McGahn instead asks her about Flynn’s purported lying to the VP

*McGahn asked Yates: “Why does it matter to DOJ if one White House official lies to another?”.

One would think that if Yates reported that Flynn lied to the FBI and committed a crime, the 1001 violation, that would be the topic of specific discussion by McGahn. But it wasn’t. Why not? The “why not” is most probably because the FD-302 “summary” Yates had in hand, did not conclude Flynn was being deceptive and lied to the FBI which is consistent with what Comey and McCabe each testified to Congress. Further proof that the interviewing agents did not believe Flynn intentionally misled them in their illegal, yet impromptu interview of Gen. Flynn.

My reply to your comment on WH Counsel McGann: McGann asked the wrong question of Yates because he failed to zealously represent the interests of his client in this matter, the duly-elected President of the United States of America.

Good catch, shyster. She obviously wasnt thinking about him lying to the fbi, then, just wanted to get him fired for lying to pence. After they leaked him as a “liar” to the press, the fbi decided to pile on and make it look like he lied to the fbi too. Good catch.

Question: If Flynn was not giving sworn testimony to the F.B.I., and was not aware that he was himself being investigated, why would he be obliged to share openly the contents of his phone call with the F.B.I. agents who (I think) did not have security clearances, and who he knew had already recorded the phone call?

Copyto James Comey, he does not lose documents. Copy to Sally Yates. Copy to President Obama, Clapper, Brennan and Biden. 6 copies minimum before it was lost. Everyone should have one. Everyone who cannot provide their copy is guilty of malfeasance.
Where are the 6 copies?

“When asked by McGahn if Flynn should be fired,..” McGahn shows no common sense, and no loyalty to the President and his chosen National Security Advisor. Or was he just playing the political game (incompetently) with a perceived political opponent?

I think this means McGahn was compromised against Trump too. It’s like “nobody likes me, everybody hates me…except all the people who in fact elected me.” It just shows how screwed up Washington — tribal Washington — was and still is. No sense of reality at all…outside of their own sense of privilege and power.

They don’t understand: People who support this President think they are all just so many petty-minded, self-important CRIMINALS — lawless worms(!) And the amalgamation of Communist and Islamic thinking, over honest morality, is largely to blame. Passive-aggressive, “Psycho” thinking and behavior (I can’t recall that character’s name just now, played by Tony Perkins).

someone..please….
if Pientka writes up his notes and them produces a formal FD302 , what form does that doc take?
Is ita hand written doc or is a word type electronic doc ?
If the latter , how does the FBI lose a formal doc like that ? Like Mueller wiped the Strozk/Page texts ?
And if the former , did the FBI/Pientka destroy the hand written FD302.
Just askin’ for a friend…and trying to understand.

For what it is worth, my understanding is that an agent has 5 days to write-up and submit his 302 form into the FBI computer system, which then keeps track of all edits, revisions, etc. If it was entered into the system, then (in theory) there is a copy of it (somewhere).

Communism vs islamic thinking…the only difference is that communists are atheists while islam masquerades as a religion. Both have the same end goal of totalitarian control over everyone and everything. Islam is a better road to the goal IMHO because as a “religion” the oppression is protected by law (in western countries) and becomes personally internalized, organically propagated, and *self administered* where communism is always external and counters basic human intuition and eventuality is thrown off.

No wonder communists in our government want to shove Islam down our throats.

Go to the most benighted third-world hellhole, and they will record your confession after they beat it out of you.

But our FBI is still relying on hand-written notes and transcriptions. This is ridiculous. This business of the 302s has to end. If nothing else comes out of this…

If the FBI could be trusted, it would not matter so much. But the FBI cannot be trusted. They have demonstrated that, over and over again. The 302 process is an invitation to abuse… an invitation to which the FBI is all to happy to RSVP.

I think the hand-written 302s prepared from notes taken by the agent at the site of the interview are not a bad way to record this stuff. If the agent is questioned later, like years’ later, they can look at a handwritten page and say yea or nay that they prepared it. Any number of problems with typed documents, substitutions can be made and so forth. Off topic, but a favorite subject of mine to get upset about is the dropping of teaching cursive/script handwriting in schools for a generation now. Dumbing down the generations will mean that our citizenry will not be ABLE to read our country’s founding documents: the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, among others!

Lady—-1) You have to have a morally upright individual writing those notes. At this point in time we appear to have very few of those, at least in the federal government. 2) It apparently has to be entered into the FBI computer system. 3) THAT’s bats! 4) At least do a physical recording at the same time the agent takes hand written notes. 5) I agree with your discussion of teaching (or not) cursive/script handwriting in schools. They’ve deliberately been dumbing down our entire school system for decades now. 6) Joe MaCarthy(sp?) was right; that’s why they attacked him so.

In my job, I interview clients in great detail all day and all night long and quickly write down as much as I can on paper. I also circle or underline things of importance, draw arrows and lines to connect different parts of the conversation, and draw short-hand symbols and abbreviations so save time. I also use checkboxes to tick off important points that I need to cover. I also draw pictures to represent what I see. After the interview, either immediately after or later than night, I dictate my note. Of course I rely on a strong memory to fill in the gaps, capture the gist of the interaction. I also try to compose the final document into something readable and concise so that whichever colleague who has to read it, especially in the middle of the night in an emergency, can understand quickly what client had wrong with them, what the exam showed, what my impression was, and what the plan was rather than sort through a bunch of cut/pasted boilerplate useless information mandated by certain regulatory agencies that sometimes takes up 50% of most reports I have to sift through.

To record or videotape the interview and then transcribe it would triple the time for us to finish a report. In my opinion, the use of a handwritten 302 form makes sense as sometimes FBI cannot just do a sit down videotaped interview, like a deposition, in certain fluid rapid situations but then might have just wear body cams like police. The main thing is to then have that agent/government worker stay up late in the office and dictate that note that very night rather than 5 days later after which memory might fail or they cannot decipher the scribble they made on their pad)

There would no way (even if I did have perfect eyesight so I would not have to keep adjusting my glasses to look between my laptop screen and the client) to type the entire interview in realtime like a Court stenographer as I would have to later edit out all the non-pertinent info the client would tell me. Plus the clients have told me repeatedly that they dislike the way younger workers in my profession are constantly typing away on their laptop and even looking at them.

The problem here is not whether handwritten contemporaneous notes are, or are not, a good way to “record,” at least initially, the contents of an interview. You method may be excellent for business purposes.

The problem is that, IN NO EVENT, should an interviewee be charged with a CRIME for allegedly making a false statement during an interview, UNLESS there exists a full and complete recording, followed by precise transcription, of exactly what the interviewee said, AND the interviewee was under oath.

One more thing to consider in the Flynn situation. If the FBI had to pull out a recording device for the interview (read: interrogation) then they wouldn’t have been able to entrap Flynn as they did by pretending it was only going to be a little friendly conversation, not an actual FBI investigation. Flynn would have clammed up and told them that he wanted to have a lawyer present.

Remember who was doing the questioning. Also remember who eventually rewrote the report to turn it from an exculpatory record into a frame-up.

Thanks for pulling these citations together, Sundance. This series of events constitutes the “kill shot” on Lt. General Flynn, ordered by (?), and communicated to the world on or about 1/12/2017 by DNI Clapper. Hoping that Flynn will recover from this wounding.

Can Gen. Flynn call up buddies in the pentagon and order an A-10 air strike on Covington & Burling late at night on a Sunday when nobody is in the building? That would be hilarious! All those fancy wood paneled offices festooned with ugly corporate modern art and comfy executive chairs and their Vitraza glass chair mats perforated like Swiss cheese!
BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRPPPPPP!!!!

Are there clearly defined rules (we wish!) for the editing of 302s? If Pientka is the notetaker, then I infer he is also supposed to be the element that gives “fidelity” to the antiquated FIB interview record process. I would think Flynn’s defense counsel (Covington firm) had to demand Pientka‘s testimony in court to vouch for the 302. I’m not aware of that happening.

3.3.1.14 (U) Retain ORIGINAL Notes Made During An Investigation
C) (U) Original notes of interview with prospective witnesses and/or suspects and subjects. That is, in any interview where preparation of and FD-302 is required (an interview where it is anticipated the results will become the subject of court testimony) the handwritten notes must be retained.

18.5.6.4.15 Documentation
(U) All original handwritten interview notes must be retained as “original note material” in (redacted) of a file.

18.5.6.4.16 (U) Use of the FD-302
(U) Interview notes must be retained in accordance with DIOG subsections 3.3.1.14 and 18.5.6.4.15 above.

“… sue a lawyer for incompetence?” Incompetent representation exposes lawyers all the time, but Covington is not guilty of incompetence. They are guilty of malfeasance, and it should cost the firm (Holder et al) dearly.

I spent 30 years in law enforcement and saw many technological changes during that time.

One of those changes involved report writing software.

Each investigative action was required to be documented in the report and, once saved, EVERY subsequent edit was internally recorded by the software with a date/time stamp, along with the sign-in identity of the person making the edit.

In other words, the edit history of the document was recoverable if needed.

Additionally, edits required supervisory approval.

Once an entry was saved, that entry couldn’t be edited unless it was unlocked by a supervisor.

The unlocking action was also internally recorded and subject to retrieval.

I find it hard to believe that the FBI doesn’t have something similar to protect the integrity of the report system, but then it IS the FBI.

Dwayne—-I hope and pray that’s true—-AND that Mr. Durham is a man of impecible(sp?) moral character. THAT lack of (impecible(sp?) moral character is the problem with all this. Neither the east coast nor the west coast appear to have moral character. THAT just leaves, “flyover” deplorables, no matter where we live. DO WE HAVE IT???

Hmm, is it just a coincidence that a few days ago Obama said, erroneously, that LTG Flynn had plead guilty to perjury but was getting off “scot free”, and now the judge is threatening to charge him with perjury for his guilty plea???

Furthermore, if Obama had accidentally and rather audibly passed gas during that interview, Judge Sullivan would also find a way to charge Gen. Flynn under some unrelated EPA regulation about unlawful emissions! [BRRRRRAAAAAAPPPPP!]

The 285 comments in this thread have obfuscated two basic thoughts.
Mea culpa, Mea culpa, Mea culpa.
(I am not a lawyer.)
1) Based on the information now at hand, DOJ had no basis for bringing a court action against Ltg. Flynn, and because his “guilty” plea was extorted, he should be immediately exonerated.
2) Who is responsible for this travesty of justice?
Number 2 is the reason this thread is important???

Yates is up to her eyeballs in skullduggery, which makes me ask, “Why did Flynn get fired?”

We know getting ousting Flynn was the goal (which they succeeded in doing). But their plan of “getting him to lie” sounds too flimsy, too likely to fail.

It makes more sense to me that Yates and company made it all up. In other words, the DOJ and FBI put on a show, with an FBI interview, then took their “evidence” to McGhan who bought it hook, line and sinker.

I want to see:
1) transcript of the Flynn/Kislyak foncon.
2) Pientka’s 302
3) Yate’s hard evidence (if any) she provided to McGhan
4) testimony by McGhan and Yates of what was said during their meeting.

Because I am willing to bet Yates fed McGhan a whole lot of BS about “Flynn lying” that never happened, but McGhan was too naive to realize it was BS. Meanwhile, Flynn was in no position to defend himself, probably thinking, “I don’t remember talking about sanctions, but if the FBI said I did, I must have… so, yes, I misled the VP” And once Flynn admitted that, he was fired. Mission accomplished.

The next step by the coup was to make sure Flynn was in no position to talk. That is where Mueller picked up the ball.

I think you are probably correct. This id in line with MCabe unhinged statement. First we F Flynn then we F Trump. I will settle for Comey, McCabe , Brennan, Clapper, Yates, Storzk and Pages to be arrested. The rest of coup plotters can sued for civil suits.

When you read this…doesn’t it seem like Flynn was playing them somehow?
What’s with the strange phrase – stated 3 times – “What a beautiful black sky”?

McCabe says he and Strok wen together to visit Flynn:

“In his new book, former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe offers extensive new details of investigators’ fateful January 2017 interview with former national security adviser Michael Flynn at the White House — a breezy conversation which began, according to McCabe, with all the urgency of a “playdate.”

“McCabe wrote in “The Threat,” released Tuesday, that “one thing [Flynn] said stands out in my memory” — namely that “when I told him that people were curious” about his conversations with the then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, Flynn replied, “You know what I said, because you guys were probably listening.”

“Without confirming Flynn’s suspicions, McCabe wrote: “I had to wonder, as events played out: If you thought we were listening, why would you lie?” (A Washington Post article published one day before Flynn’s White House interview with the agents, citing FBI sources, publicly revealed that the FBI had wiretapped Flynn’s calls and cleared him of any criminal conduct.)

“According to McCabe, the interview was “very odd” because “it seemed like [Flynn] was telling the truth” to the two agents who interviewed him, including since-fired FBI agent Peter Strzok. Flynn, the interviewing agents told McCabe, “had a very good recollection of events, which he related chronologically and lucidly,” did not appear to be “nervous or sweating,” and did not look “side to side” — all of which would have been “behavioral signs of deception.”

McCabe wrote that Flynn seemed “completely normal” — even when, on three occasions, Flynn looked at the window and told agents, “What a beautiful black sky.”

“McCabe maintained that Flynn made that memorable comment three times — first, at “noon,” then an hour later, and then one more time shortly after that. However, McCabe’s timeline in the book appeared to contradict the sentencing memorandum filed late last year by Flynn’s attorneys, citing government documents.

“The memorandum, which relied on sealed documents whose authenticity was not challenged by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team, asserted that McCabe had called Flynn to set up the interview at 12:35 p.m. on Jan. 24, 2017, and that agents arrived at the White House at 2:15 p.m. — more than two hours after McCabe claimed in the book that Flynn first made the comment to the agents about the “beautiful black sky.”

(So if those times were totally wrong – what else did they get wrong?)

Can someone confirm that the weather that day was indeed dark and cloudy? Also check when sunset was. Or have Washingtonians look through their cellphones to see if the snapped any photos outdoors that day in the same direction as windows in that WH office. Or check old surveillance video from the WH exterior security cameras.

McCabe didn’t write the original 302. Pientka did. Maybe he kept a copy.
Smirk got fired. Pientka didn’t.
One of these days we might hear from Pientka when he is questioned. Will he tell the truth? Or will he lie to defend his bureau?
If he tells the truth,we might see a “beautiful black sky” forming over the FBI building.

From SD article – Lisa Page is “pissed off” because Peter Strzok previously edited the 302 and she says he “didn’t even attempt to make this cogent and readable.”

Peter Strzok replies back to Lisa Page that he was “trying to completely re-write the thing so as to save Joe’s voice”, because Joe Pientka was the actual author.

This is even worse than originally thought as Strozk was “rewriting” the 302 to make sound as if it was Joe Pientka’s original. That is why the original disappeared and DoJ/FBI were hiding the evidence. Somebody needs to get their hands on the transcripts of the Flynn Hearings, to see how the rewritten 302 was introduced. Plus, the fact DoJ/FBI was saying there was no new evidence means they were pushing the rewritten 302 as the original. That is the actual damning fact of the points made in SD’s article. Peter Strzok’s e-mail is an admission to “falsifying evidence” and another reason Sullivan is about to enter a very dark place.

The Steele Dossier was not the only bit of false narrative being used by the conspirators.

Can’t help but to keep going back to this text by Lisa Page: “This document pisses me off.? You didn’t even make the attempt to make this cogent and readable.? This is lazy work on your part.”

Begin with the premises that these ‘personal’ texts would likely be less guarded than official presentations and that texting is a shortened version of talking. “make the attempt” should have been “try”; wasted words and letters for no reason. “cogent” is a word generally used when framing or analyzing an argument; Strzok is supposed to editing a narrative. The contextual use of this word suggests awareness in framing a narrative. “readable” is similarly out of place. Generally, ‘unreadable’, and the more commonly used version of the word, refers to handwritten notes that are difficult to decipher or are so long winded as to be confusing; here she is reviewing a typewritten product. By not texting something as simple as ‘I’m confused’ after her review necessarily placed blame squarely on Strzok.

“lazy work” are two words at odds with each other; understandable but unconventional as lazy is not work and work is not lazy. Perhaps I have missed this regularly used cliche along my way. “on your part” seems a reference to some prior discussed delegations of assigned tasks – think group effort.

“pisses me off” is anger combined with potential retaliation – few words similarly evoke bodily functions. Aside from an unbecoming state of mind in a ranking official, her emotion appears to have affected her ability to communicate as noted above. Strzok’s conciliatory response is submissively consistent with her owning his work product and penis. It took him 4 1/2 hours to respond and when doing so, took 4 texts within the minute to spit it out; he was obviously reading and re-reading his placation. Haste or nerves or both?

You give Lisa Page way too much credit. She was just not bright enough to realize the goal was a rewrite, to look like the original written by Agent Pientka. Read the whole string of messages. She gets on-board and the Peter S says he did it all in a single edit as it was better than “IMing” [edits back and forth].

She was not happy Peter S did the edit and then submitted it without her inputs.

Words are the only tools of the attorney. Those “words” were typed by her; words originate from thoughts.

Strange would then be the notion that only the best and the brightest can find their way into these institutions. None of these “highest ranking” people also get to be ‘blind and stupid’ when convenient.

Best contextual analysis – she unwittingly dropped her guard while communicating behind the scenes and admitted she was awaiting “her part” in the previously discussed upcoming editing job; she was charged with inserting her words (tools) in the places of another (thoughts) for public use.

What pisses me off is the Strzok-Paige texts (and the other captured texts) are an absolute contemporaneous road map into the motivations and intent of these slime balls, better than any in person testimony…and we still are waiting for indictments!

The existence of the document depends upon the specifics of how the 302 was prepared and various policies used to administer specific IT system.

For example, was the 302 initially prepared from an Office template and placed into a file share to enable collaboration or was a special system used for entering the data? How does the data move from the creation/editing stage to official record status? How does collaboration occur? If there are versioning and revisioning capabilities in the collaboration process, what are the retention policies for work in progress data? What documentation is created along the way? What logging capabilities are implemented for specific systems and for the IT system as a whole? How, specifically, are backup and archiving processes performed?

However it was done, the process clearly involves collaboration. Strczk and Page and others had access to the information, and the access could have been to the raw, original data or to a copy of it. The process may or may not involve document versioning/revisioning, which would enable retention or overwriting of the original document. Obviously, once the document reaches official, approved records status then it is definitely not deletable.

The process seems to allow point in time printouts that can be handed to others or possibly emailed. If so, there are certainly point in time copies of this information buried in backups of the system.

I would bet several paychecks that a copy of this 302 can be found by someone who knows how to look, or the IT administrators involved in deleting the information can be identified. A single admin having the privilege necessary to clean that information out of the system in all its forms would need to have very extensive access. Additionally, if the information was deleted, it may be possible to identify the culprit by combing the system event logs and the IT change management system. Deleting this data would, without question, leave fingerprints all over the place. Not saying it would be easy… might take someone like… the FBI… to figure out what happened.

I can say this… reading the IG report on the FBI system for archiving text messages does not inspire a lot of confidence in me that the FBI has state-of-the-art IT administration. I could certainly be wrong, but I cringed at the details in the IG report.

If is a crime to lie to Congress and a crime to lie to Courts (Legislative,Judical) and a crime to lie to the FBI and the head of the FBI wasn’t James Comey but President Obama and President Trump respectively as the Head of the Executive Branch. I’m ill educated in the ends and outs of Politics but it seems reasonable if it is a crime to lie to the other branches of government it seems like it should be a crime to lie to the President. The head of the joint chiefs of the militarily reports to the President, the President is the Head of the Military as well as all the other Executive Departments.

What I find interesting about the Strzok/Page editing discussions that I haven’t seen anyone remark on…Strzok says Page didn’t see it before he did his edits, yet he also goes on to say he incorporated her edits? This would show she provided words, not spelling & grammar suggestions

We know they’re all scum.
There’s audio and written proof that many have lied UNDER OATH.
But – they are all free, walking about and laughing at PDJT, General Flynn, and us Deplorables
DECLINE to PROSECUTE is the DOJ’s favorite saying – imho.
Wray is still the dysfunctional head of the dysfunctional FBI and enjoying his paycheck.
Why in the name of hell can’t every one of those bastards that lied be charged – – TODAY?
I don’t understand how a simple charge of flying would jeopardize something “big” later.
Patience Grasshopper – MY ASS.
PDJT needs some support from the DOJ and he is NOT getting it.
WHY?

General Flynn KNEW that they were recording Kislyak when he phoned him. Now, is Flynn an idiot? No, he is not. Was he going to tell Kislyak anything illegal or improper? Hardly. Would he have intentionally lied to Pientka and Strzok? Why would he? The only issue with the whole thing was the press screeching Putin’s poodle and making the administration look bad. And who created that narrative? Hillary’s henchmen with Obama’s help. There was never any truth to any of it. Ever. And they all knew it because THEY MADE IT ALL UP, then Gaslighted the American public with nonstop media lies. Their goal was always to poison the electorate towards Trump and his people so that they could take back the House and the Senate and eventually the presidency.

I just hope people don’t get lost in the weed. We need a simple way of explaining this to voters who are not obsessed with politics

And will add, we CAN NOT discount John McCain’s role in all of this. His cutout Kramer literally spread the dossier to every willing journo in town, wth the MCCain seal
Of approval, AFTER the election. They never could have gotten away with it without the help of RINOs like Paul Ryan and McConnell. Never forget that. Wray and Coats were not Trump’s friends.

People, how about going to the original transcript of the phone call. The Russian brought it up, Flynn said that would have to wait until latter and THAT WAS IT!!!
That is NOT a conversation. That is a MENTION.
One question and one ‘I can’t deal with that now’. IS NOT A CONVERSATION!!!!!!
There NEVER was any push on the definition that the FBI said was a Crime. Flynn’s attorneys were IDIOTs and/or were in on the FRAME. They should have brought up what was actually SAID and the FBI and the case would have been laughed out of the court.